05/22/2025
We have been committed to positive reinforcement only ever since we formed the company, Mutts With Manners, in 2009. 
CCPDT has officially responded to community questions about their stance on aversive training methods; however, their FAQ contains significant inaccuracies and misleading statements regarding AVSAB’s current position on humane dog training.
What is the issue with CCPDT? Misleading Claims on Aversive Methods
The backlash against CCPDT for continuing a 24th straight year of enabling aversive dog training methods in the profession as the rest of the industry decisively moves on is unprecedented.
Right now, the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, Inc. (CCPDT) continues to endorse the use of aversive training methods, such as electronic collars and prong collars, by their certificants in spite of clear, explicit advisement from the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior - AVSAB against these methods.
In their newly-released FAQ document (see here:https://files.constantcontact.com/a81eb4f7201/8623f77c-c24a-4f8e-8ad4-a6345c1b76ae.pdf )
CCPDT is actually doubling down while citing either a long-outdated 2007 AVSAB document that’s been formally replaced, possibly even fabricating a quote that doesn’t exist in any current statement.
AVSAB is one of the most credentialed organizations in the field of animal behavior, veterinary medicine, and professional dog training. When AVSAB issues evidence-based guidance, credentialing bodies like CCPDT must regard it as far more than just advice or suggestion. They should consider it a professional mandate on how our field must operate ethically and responsibly.
Here’s what AVSAB clearly states in their current (2021) position statement (and, by the way, this statement is supported entirely by every veterinary behavior science organization on the planet, not just AVSAB)
“Based on current scientific evidence, AVSAB recommends that only reward-based training methods are used for all dog training, including the treatment of behavior problems. Aversive training methods have a damaging effect on both animal welfare and the human-animal bond. There is no evidence that aversive methods are more effective than reward-based methods in any context AVSAB therefore advises that aversive methods should not be used in animal training or for the treatment of behavior disorders.”
You can read the full document here (plus the extensive list of sources):https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf
CCPDT’s new “FAQ” document, which will become infamous in our field, is objectively full of misinformation. So let’s break it down:
📌FAQ 1: “Why did the CCPDT transition from the LIMA framework to the Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures (HBCP)?”
aka: Why did CCPDT switch from one model allowing aversives (LIMA) to another model also allowing aversives (Hierarchy of Behavior Change)?
Their claim: CCPDT argues this hierarchy is clearer and better emphasizes positive reinforcement compared to LIMA.
Is this accurate?
Not really. They’re essentially swapping one loophole-filled model for another. While it sounds progressive, Friedman’s Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures (also known as “the Humane Hierarchy”) explicitly permits aversives as a “last resort,” leaving significant room for subjective judgment.
True clarity, and dog welfare, would require proactively banning aversives entirely for professional trainers. This is the only way to be in compliance with the AVSAB statement. The hierarchy model that they cite is based on a pre-2021 scientific consensus which is no longer supported in the veterinary behavior field.
📌FAQ 2: Do the CCPDT’s policies permit the use of aversive tools, such as electronic training collars and prong collars?
Their claim:
They claim aversive tools aren’t permitted for training “functional obedience skills” and also are not permitted for “dogs that exhibit aggression, anxiety, and fear”… but aversives can be used under vague conditions.
Is this accurate?
Despite careful wording, CCPDT absolutely allows aversive tools such as shock and prong collars. By setting arbitrary conditions like the dog’s age or the type of training (for example, allowing prong collars for dogs over six months, or permitting shock collars outside of basic obedience training), CCPDT keeps these aversives explicitly available to their certified trainers. This directly contradicts AVSAB’s position that aversive methods should never be used in dog training, period, because of the known risks and more effective alternatives.
📌FAQ 3: Can the CCPDT ensure that trainers use tools appropriately and ethically?
Their claim: They rely on investigating complaints after harm potentially occurs.
Is this sufficient?
Absolutely not. Reactive, after-the-fact enforcement doesn’t protect dogs, public safety, or consumer trust. Genuine public and animal welfare protection demands proactive standards preventing harm before it happens. Worse, they claim to define “unacceptable” practices while still allowing aversive tools which have clearly been declared unacceptable in all cases based on scientific evidence. This is why all of the other legitimate credentialing bodies prohibit such practices. This isn’t ethical oversight. It’s a system built to excuse harm, not prevent it.
📌FAQ 4: Does the CCPDT support “force-free” or “balanced” training?
Their claim: CCPDT claims neutrality, avoiding these labels and stating they’re purely objective.
Is this accurate?
Not at all. Allowing aversives clearly aligns CCPDT with what dog trainers, and the public, recognize as “balanced training.” True neutrality, if it were actually grounded in scientific consensus (like AVSAB’s), would mean explicitly prohibiting positive punishment altogether.
CCPDT dismisses terms like “force-free” as emotional or divisive, while pretending their own stance is neutral. But advocating for aversive methods, lobbying for their protection, and embedding them into policy is ideology.
Through CCPDT’s active support of legislation aimed at codifying the continued use of aversive methods, directly contradicting clear scientific consensus and AVSAB guidelines, they reveal themselves to be exactly what they repeatedly claim not to be: an advocacy organization. While CCPDT insists they are neutral and objective, their persistent lobbying and defense of outdated methods clearly demonstrate advocacy in action. Denying this obvious reality is misleading at best.
📌FAQ 5: Why doesn’t the CCPDT adopt the AVSAB position statement on humane dog training?
Their claim: CCPDT claims alignment, mentioning that aversive methods could be acceptable as a “last resort” with informed consent.
Is this accurate?
This is absolutely NOT supported by AVSAB as they claim. AVSAB’s current position (2021) explicitly states that aversive methods should never be used in training or behavior modification *in any case*
The “last resort with consent” quote which CCPDT attributes to AVSAB does not even exist in the current statement. We have not found this exact quote anywhere, but there is a similar statement in an old AVSAB guidance document from 2007… which has been explicitly superseded by AVSAB’s 2021 statement that clearly states that aversives should never be used for training or behavior modification under any circumstances.
Whether pulled from outdated guidance or fabricated entirely, this claim is false and misleading and should be immediately corrected by CCPDT.
This entire response misrepresents AVSAB’s very clear guidance. You can’t claim “alignment” while institutionalizing the very practices AVSAB explicitly warns against.
📌FAQ 6: How do the CCPDT's policies compare to positions held by other organizations in the field?
Their claim: CCPDT suggests they hold “similar values” with the exception of CCPDT’s allowance for aversive tools like shock and prong collars, where other organizations have completely prohibited them.
Is this accurate?
Not even close. CCPDT fundamentally diverges from groups like IAABC, APDTI, and every major veterinary behavior organization, all of which have explicitly banned aversives.
Claiming “similar values” while permitting practices those organizations define as unethical is extremely misleading. If your shared values still allow for shock collars, they’re not the same values.
📌FAQ 7: Who is guiding the CCPDT decisions?
Their claim: CCPDT emphasizes broad input, including veterinary behaviorists and trainers.
Is this sufficient?
Unfortunately, no. Veterinary behaviorists, as recognized experts in animal welfare, have their critical expertise minimized. By marginalizing these welfare specialists, CCPDT prioritizes trainer convenience over scientifically supported animal welfare standards.
📌FAQ 8: Has the CCPDT considered alternative frameworks, such as the LIFE model?
Their claim: CCPDT states they’ve discussed the LIFE model with its author Dr. Eduardo Fernandez.
Is this enough?
Engaging in discussions without real policy change is performative. If CCPDT genuinely valued progressive frameworks, they would meaningfully move away from aversives and into compliance with the AVSAB position statement, as any responsible credentialing organization would.
We should all ask ourselves why they continue to dig their heels. Does this strike you as a credentialing organization acting in good faith?
📌FAQ 9: What evidence is CCPDT relying on?
Their claim: CCPDT says scientific studies show that aversives have risks, but these can be minimized with careful usage.
Accurate?
This one is pretty egregious. CCPDT claims there’s evidence supporting the use of aversive methods “in moderation,” but no credible, peer-reviewed scientific research that we know of actually supports that stance. If CCPDT genuinely has evidence otherwise, they should transparently cite it for professional review when making this claim.
The reality is that the clear scientific consensus, explicitly stated by AVSAB and supported by decades’ worth of evidence, is that aversive methods consistently carry significant risks, including increased fear, stress, anxiety, and aggression, and offer no proven benefits over reward-based methods. AVSAB has clearly stated there is no evidence that these methods are necessary. Are you going to believe the most credentialed professionals in the world, or those who want to simply codify balanced training into law?
This claim is scientifically unsupported, ethically indefensible, and deeply concerning from any credentialing organization.
📌FAQ 10: Why is aversive equipment still allowed in limited situations?
Their claim: CCPDT argues complete bans don’t prevent misuse by the public, suggesting professional oversight reduces harm.
Is this convincing?
No. Ci******es aren’t fully banned, but doctors have stopped endorsing them because science revealed their dangers clearly. CCPDT’s continued allowance of aversives, despite science revealing clear harm, is unjustifiable.
Legitimate credentialing bodies must prioritize public safety, consumer protection, and animal welfare through proactive, evidence-based policies, not outdated methods or unsupported ideologies.
📌FAQ 11: What actions can concerned individuals take if they believe a CCPDT-certified trainer is violating a CCPDT Policy?
Their claim: They encourage formal complaints and investigations after the fact.
Is this sufficient?
No. Genuine protection for dogs and consumers demands proactively clear standards, not merely reacting after harm occurs. Waiting for a complaint allows preventable harm.
📌FAQ 12: Does the CCPDT publish disciplinary outcomes or enforcement data?
Their claim: They maintain confidentiality for involved trainers.
Is this adequate?
Not really. Without transparency, the public cannot verify that accountability measures even truly exist, let alone effectively safeguard animals and consumers.
📌FAQ 13: Why doesn’t the CCPDT allow for anonymous complaints?
Their claim: CCPDT claims transparency ensures fairness and discourages malicious reports, though exceptions occasionally might apply.
What does this mean?
This discourages genuine whistleblowers who might fear retaliation, potentially allowing harmful practices to continue unchecked.
📌FAQ 14: How is the CCPDT responding to the concerns and feedback from the training community regarding the recent policy updates?
Their claim: They say they anticipated criticism and remain open to feedback.
Is this accurate?
Not meaningfully. This performative openness masks 24 years of stagnant policy.
CCPDT keeps “kicking the can,” maintaining aversive allowances despite persistent professional feedback advocating clear, aversive-free standards.
As stated before, their policies enable harm to persist, against the advisement of the veterinary behavior community, and we believe this increases legal liability to both certified trainers and the organization itself, particularly as everyone in the world becomes aware of the new consensus but them.
📌FAQ 15: What if I don’t agree with a CCPDT policy? Can I give feedback?
Their claim: CCPDT claims that their annual policy reviews consider community input.
Is this meaningful?
Unlikely. Decades of feedback against aversive methods haven’t resulted in substantive change. Meaningful responsiveness means adopting clear, proactive welfare standards consistent with modern-day recommendations.
📌FAQ 16: What should I do if I see misinformation online about CCPDT policies?
Their claim: CCPDT asks supporters to correct misinformation by referring to official CCPDT documents.
Is this credible?
This is ironic at best. CCPDT themselves repeatedly misrepresent key information (such as AVSAB’s current stance). They claim alignment while actively contradicting AVSAB’s unequivocal aversive prohibition. The community should remain vigilant against CCPDT’s own false claims.
📌FAQ 17: What does the CCPDT credential mean after my name?
Their Claim:
They state that earning a CCPDT credential demonstrates the trainer’s commitment to reinforcement-based training, ethical conduct, evidence-based practice, and professional accountability. They emphasize that the credentials are psychometrically sound, accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), and represent credible, defensible indicators of real-world competency.
Is this accurate?
Only partially. While CCPDT credentials indicate a trainer has passed a standardized exam measuring certain knowledge and skills, the credential alone does not guarantee adherence to genuinely humane, evidence-based methods.
Psychometric validation does not speak to the ethical soundness of training methods or policies promoted by CCPDT. It just means their exams measure consistently - not that the methods endorsed by CCPDT are scientifically or ethically appropriate.
CCPDT explicitly allows aversive methods in limited scenarios, which contradicts the principles of true reinforcement-based, science-supported training. The credential, therefore, signals only that a trainer has met CCPDT’s defined standards - not necessarily the evidence-based standards endorsed by leading welfare authorities like AVSAB.
📌FAQ 18: “I don’t feel comfortable referring to a CCPDT-certificant.”
Their Claim:
They acknowledge certification has limits, admitting it doesn’t guarantee ethical decision-making in every situation. They highlight that CCPDT-certified trainers are held accountable through formal complaint and disciplinary processes and emphasize that certification establishes clear minimum standards in an otherwise unregulated industry.
Is this sufficient?
No, this remains problematic. While CCPDT certification indeed provides accountability not offered by completely uncertified trainers, it still does not align fully with current scientific consensus or ethical standards. Allowing aversive tools, no matter how regulated, undermines the certification’s ethical credibility. Thus, cautious skepticism about referring CCPDT-certified trainers is justified until CCPDT updates their standards fully in line with leading welfare guidelines like AVSAB’s clear position against aversive methods.
Stay informed.
